Cops Kill Family’s Dog in Front of Kids, Force Dad to Cut Its Head Off Or Go To Jail

The cop is on paid leave while they do a department review. He has not been punished yet. Context is your friend. The start of the video has no
context. Stop using a 8 second clip to describe a hour long situation.

The video is a lot longer than eight seconds. Try actually watching it. You can see the cop assault the man, and you can hear him admit to
threatening the guy with jail. Stop trying to deflect from the facts.

Are you highly confused? Did you read this thread? Did you watch the video? Nowhere in the embedded video do you see a dogs head get cut off. That is
what people were asking. I was informing them it was safe to watch the embedded video. Context is your friend.

Good grief - FIVE posts to me? What, you can't respond in one, and have to repeat everything, over and over again??

Are you being obtuse on purpose? Nobody was assaulted and that's your own misunderstanding of law. He wasn't threatened with Jail for not cutting a
dogs head off and the fact you don't understand that speaks volumes. He was threatened with Jail for how he was acting towards the officers. He could
have been arrested for Obstruction most likely if he continued how he was acting.

Please stop saying this. I never once suggested that I get to decide anything.

I just don't think he was justified in doing that

Surely you see that those statement contradict each other...You are absolutely deciding that because you got to review a video after the fact you know
how the situation should have been handled at the time.

Surely you understand what the word "decide" means? Just because I have an opinion, doesn't mean I'm claiming to have power to decide anything over
police officers. You have a knack for posting non sequiturs, which is why we keep getting so off topic. Again, I saw no reason for the conflict to
get physical as escalated by the officer.

Swearing IS verbal assault and harassment (in some varying degree), especially continued swearing at a person, as defined by MANY local
laws/ordinances. Did you know that in GA (and many states) you can be arrested for swearing in front of children 14 and under? That went all the way
to the Scotus as well.

Dude, stop posting irrelevant arguments. This situation is not "swearing in front of a minor". I never argued that it was okay to do that. He was
using adult language around adults, can we please stick to the topic? No, swearing is absolutely NOT verbal assault or harassment. The way the laws
are worded in regards to that, clearly show that you have to go beyond just swearing. I already explained and broke down the exact wording of that MO
law that was posted earlier in the thread. That was pretty much ignored and you keep making excuses for the officer without any hard evidence that he
was justified in going after the guy physically.

Obstruction of justice is laughable. The police are completely responsible for causing the huge delay because they shot the dog without even asking
the owner to subdue it first, and then went after the owner physically because they were upset with his comments. It's is absurdity of the highest
degree to pin the delays on the owner, when all of it could have been prevented, had the officers been respectful of life instead of just gunning down
the dog before even trying to contact the owner. It was completely mishandled by the police and unnecessarily escalated by them TWICE.

Nobody was threatened with Jail for not cutting a dogs head off. That is a bald faced lie. It's normal procedure to put an officer on administrative
leave (different from suspension) during an investigation into their actions. I am sorry you don't understand how this works.

He wasn't told he "could" decide to do it; he was told he had to do it, and threatened with jail.

That is a total fabrication and no link you provided supports that false statement.

Wrong again. You broke down FIRST DEGREE harassment law. I already showed there are varying degrees of harrassment, and cursing at someone
continuously is covered under almost all local ordinances. Understand the difference in degrees when it comes to breaking the law. And he was in front
of kids, his own. His original post said his kids witnessed the entire thing.

You are also extremely confused yet again. The owner in the video (the male) was not home when this happened. We hear in the video that the dog
charged the officer twice. The officers says he tried to get the wife to call it off and she couldn't. It seems you went into this whole thing with a
predisposition to what you thought happened and only heard what you wanted to.

Here you are again, deciding in hindsight, that the officer should have given the owner more of a chance to subdue the dog.

Are you being obtuse on purpose? Nobody was assaulted and that's your own misunderstanding of law. He wasn't threatened with Jail for not cutting a
dogs head off and the fact you don't understand that speaks volumes. He was threatened with Jail for how he was acting towards the officers. He could
have been arrested for Obstruction most likely if he continued how he was acting.

Wrong, again. He attacked the man for speaking as he was, and stated that was his reason. A cop isn't legally allowed to assault someone who is
standing still, not attacking the cop, because the cop is a whiny baby who doesn't like the words used. Cops are not above the law, and that one
broke it. The other did his best to try and cal things, but the one was very much in the wrong. All of the evidence disagrees with your opinions.

Nobody was assaulted. The situation isn't under review for assault. The review board is trying to determine if the officers forced the man to cut the
dogs head off. The review was opened based on the news pieces. The news pieces already came out and said they were not provided the entire video, but
only a 20 second clip of the event and the portion of him cutting the head off while he had the department of health on the phone.
Source

The deputy made contact with the woman who was attacked by the dog. She sustained bites to her leg and was taken to the hospital, the news
release states.

Which is why the deputy was forced to shoot the dog when it lunged at him the second time.

It says Joe Goodwin then began arguing with the officer but was given options concerning how to handle the dead animal.

"The Crawford County Health Department was notified and the owner of the dog was advised, by that agency, of the state rabies testing
requirements and options regarding the dog," according to the sheriff's office news release.

So it was the health department that said the dogs head had to be removed. That explains the "well she said" comment about a woman who was giving
instructions in the video.

Goodwin conveniently left this out when the news stories broke, but was pressed and admitted:

Goodwin told 13WMAZ that he was told he could take the dog to the vet for rabies testing.

This is the transcript according to the news:

"We're asking you to remove the dog's head," Hollis responds.

"Yeah," said Goodwin.

"And you're refusing, right?" Hollis asked.

No threat of arrest, nothing. Hollis leaves to make a phone call for further clarification. During that time Goodwin VOLUNTEERS to cut the dogs head
off.

And since you missed it, this is why Hollis was on paid leave:

Walker said Tuesday that his office is still investigating what Hollis said.

Since Hollis is no longer on leave it looks like he got cleared of any wrongdoing, as is obvious in the video.

People are severely confused about what happened in that video. The officers were there investigating an incident that caused someone to be
hospitalized. A dog then attacked an officer and had to be shot, resulting in an even bigger investigation. Now we are finding out the owner had to be
told several times to calm down prior to the start of filming (or he edited it out). He wouldn't calm down. His language was antagonistic in nature.
He was threatened with Jail for THAT. Not for refusing to remove the dogs head. He was turned towards his truck as a warning, and it obviously wasn't
that rough as he didn't even drop his phone. The officers were fully aware he was filming and told him he could record all he wanted.

The people who are still going on about this incident are people who obviously have an issue with peace officers.

Nobody was assaulted. The situation isn't under review for assault. The review board is trying to determine if the officers forced the man to cut the
dogs head off. The review was opened based on the news pieces. The news pieces already came out and said they were not provided the entire video, but
only a 20 second clip of the event and the portion of him cutting the head off while he had the department of health on the phone.
Source

The deputy made contact with the woman who was attacked by the dog. She sustained bites to her leg and was taken to the hospital, the news
release states.

Which is why the deputy was forced to shoot the dog when it lunged at him the second time.

It says Joe Goodwin then began arguing with the officer but was given options concerning how to handle the dead animal.

"The Crawford County Health Department was notified and the owner of the dog was advised, by that agency, of the state rabies testing
requirements and options regarding the dog," according to the sheriff's office news release.

So it was the health department that said the dogs head had to be removed. That explains the "well she said" comment about a woman who was giving
instructions in the video.

Goodwin conveniently left this out when the news stories broke, but was pressed and admitted:

Goodwin told 13WMAZ that he was told he could take the dog to the vet for rabies testing.

This is the transcript according to the news:

"We're asking you to remove the dog's head," Hollis responds.

"Yeah," said Goodwin.

"And you're refusing, right?" Hollis asked.

No threat of arrest, nothing. Hollis leaves to make a phone call for further clarification. During that time Goodwin VOLUNTEERS to cut the dogs head
off.

And since you missed it, this is why Hollis was on paid leave:

Walker said Tuesday that his office is still investigating what Hollis said.

Since Hollis is no longer on leave it looks like he got cleared of any wrongdoing, as is obvious in the video.

Edit: broken links?

The issue isn't whether or not the dog needed testing, or even whether or not it needed to be shot, as far as I am concerned, and I have stated this
already. The issue is that he was threatened, and he was, in fact, assaulted. Your links don't work.

Crawford sheriff says man given 'options' before cutting dog's head off

The pertinent parts were quoted in my previous post. He was not assaulted. Hollis is no longer on leave. Your narrative is a dead one.

After Investigator Hollis arrived on scene and exited his patrol vehicle, he called the Crawford County Health Department and spoke with Ms.
Sims to let her know of the situation and what needed to be done about the dog. Investigator Hollis placed his phone on speaker mode so that Mr.
Goodwin could hear her instructions.

Ms. Sims stated that either the owner of the dog needed to cut the head off of the dog or take it to a Vet and have them to do it in order to have the
dog tested for rabies. After Ms. Sims stated that Mr. Goodwin had to cut the head off of the dog, he became irate and started yelling and cussing.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.